The groups[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica,sans-serif]As part of their campaign to punch above their weight, the RCP/LM-ers have been accused of placing their supporters in organisations, or helping to found organisations, that could provide useful platforms for promoting their own agenda. Examples sometimes cited include, Sense About Science, the Genetic Interest Group, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, PROGRESS , the Pro-Choice Forum, and the Science Media Centre. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica,sans-serif]They have also been accused of setting up front groups. Among the groups that have been viewed in this light are: [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica,sans-serif]Workers Against Racism (WAR) - no to all immigration controls[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica,sans-serif]WORLDwrite - anti-green gap years and school exchanges[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica,sans-serif]The people
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica,sans-serif]Names to watch out for. These are people who were either part of the RCP, and/or have made contributions to Living Marxism/LM/Spiked/IoI or Novo (LM's sister publication in Germany) and/or are/have been part of associated groups (see above) and/or whose stated positions appear remarkably similar to others listed below. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica,sans-serif]IoI = Institute of Ideas [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica,sans-serif]IFM = Irish Freedom Movement[/FONT]WAR = Workers Against Racism
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica,sans-serif]UKC = individuals known to have studied or taught at the University of Kent at Canterbury where Frank Furedi is based. UKC has been a key recruiting ground for the RCP and the 'Furedi network'. [/FONT]

But I think that w really need to keep our feet on the ground with stuff like this and remember that most people have not spent much of there spare time trawling through Wessely papers. This is not the sort of accusation, based on a collection of scraps that seem to fit together, that is remotely ready for outside consideration. I think it could be interesting for those of us looking for possbile insights into the philosophy and thinking that has guided CFS research in the UK, but it doesn't add up to anything that could be made into a public accusation of anything improper.

I'm not especially focussed on Wessely with this, and we seem unable to trace the claims that he himself is one of the RCP infilitration group. The links may be scraps that don't make a complete picture yet, but that's no reason not to try to fill in the gaps. Much of what we have is circumstantial - like the timing of Wessely's rapid rise to a position of great influence at a young age, coinciding with the rise of this infiltrationist movement - but tracking the whole network would be a challenging enterprise to say the least. Overt and covert memberships of the RCP will overlap with other interests seamlessly, and presumably also with scientists who are completely unaware of the landscape.

I'm far more focused by all this on the underlying philosophy, as you rightly say, and on the mechanism of control of scientific reporting in the media via the Science Media Centre. This thread's about the SMC suppressing the XMRV paper, and the establishment and control of the SMC by the RCP is an issue identified along the way. It does appear that it ought to be grounds for querying the SMC's charitable status.

One thing seems clearly established: that Fiona Fox as head of the SMC is implicated in this group and its philosophy, and that this philosophy is fundamentally consistent with the aim of suppressing awareness of ME/CFS, and of suppressing research into the science of environmental illness. Their interests are clearly in direct opposition to those of people suffering from unexplained illnesses, since they have an explicit philosophy of defending science as a whole by pushing victims of science into the shadows. This philosophy of consciously and secretly sacrificing the not-so-few for the greater good is not only callous in the extreme, it's also stupid and incredibly dangerous, because the ever-greater damages that incautious science increasingly threatens to inflict on everyone put humanity as a whole in ever-greater peril. These sins of the fathers will be visited on the children, yea unto the umpteenth generation - these moronic and morally illiterate creatures would have done better to study a bit more maths. And explicitly going to war on the planet that sustains you and then on your fellow humans as they become casualties of that war is a strategy that has abandoned any recognisable ethical values. No apologies for pursuing the subject here.

Hey Mark
just reading your response to my question about the "commies" y'all referenced. I appreciate your sophisticated political analyses and am too underslept to get too jiggy with it all now, going to come back and read the rest of the posts when brain working better as this thread is super interesting.

but hey just had to say now, yay Manu Chao! Love Clandestino, the only cd really familiar with, a friend gave me about 7 years, crazy for bongo bong:

and also had to say I know what you mean about confusing communism and fascism and I'm not one of those americans who thought hitler was a "commie" (I am also not one of the americans who was confused thinking that sadam hussein had anything to do with al qaeda; "Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to factual evidence. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."-wikipedia)...

I agree extreme rt and left bleed together,and have to agree with those who suspect that US conservative politicians have been taking their cues on how to manipulate the public from some 1930's german strategies, from a 2004 essay:
To make a comparison between Germany in the 1930s and America now, I relied on a Web site called "A Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust." The passages in quotations below are taken from the site.
"With Adolf Hitler's ascendancy to the chancellorship, the Nazi Party quickly consolidated its power. Hitler managed to maintain a posture of legality throughout the Nazification process."
Whether by chance or design, George W. Bush is the most powerful American president in modern history. Not only does he have both houses of Congress beholden to him, but the majority of the Supreme Court is acting like a quintet of Bush lapdogs. And it all appears legal.
"Domestically, during the next six years, Hitler completely transformed Germany into a police state."
Civil libertarians insist that this is happening here now, with the USA Patriot Act in force and Patriot II on the table.
"Hitler engaged in a 'diplomatic revolution' by negotiating with other European countries and publicly expressing his strong desire for peace."
Nobody can accuse Bush of being overly diplomatic, but, like all political leaders, he is an apostle for peace, even while starting two wars during his brief tenure.
In 1933, the Reichstag, Germany's parliament building, was burned to the ground. Nobody knows for sure who set the fire. The Nazis blamed communists. "This incident prompted Hitler[,then Germany's chancellor,] to convince [German President Paul von] Hindenburg to issue a Decree for the Protection of People and State that granted Nazis sweeping power to deal with the so-called emergency."
The Reichstag fire parallels the Sept. 11 attacks here, and Hindenburg's decree parallels our USA Patriot Act.
Soon after Hitler took power, the concentration camp at Dachau was created and "the Nazis began arresting Communists, Socialists and labor leaders ... . Parliamentary democracy ended with the Reichstag passage of the Enabling Act, which allowed the government to issue laws without the Reichstag."
With Bush leading all branches of government around by the nose, there's a question whether parliamentary democracy still exists here. Certainly, concentration camps exist, if we're willing to call the lockup at Guantnamo Bay what it really is. And the USA Patriot Act allows the president to effectively take citizenship rights from any American-born criminal suspect.
"Nazi anti-Semitic legislation and propaganda against 'Non-Aryans' was a thinly disguised attack against anyone who had Jewish parents or grandparents. Jews felt increasingly isolated from the rest of German society."
How comfortable do American-born Arabs feel in the United States today?
While the German concentration camps were being built and Jews were being persecuted, in 1936 Nazi Germany hosted the Olympic Games and put its best face forward to the world. We have the Super Bowl.
In the mid- to late 1930s, Germany was able to annex nearby territories without firing a shot. That was because of the threat of the German military, the strongest in the world at the time. That might be compared with the sudden flexibility of Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Libya, all of whom are aware that Bush will do more than just threaten; he'll do it. (2004)

I am lucky to live in a city that has a lot of locally involved people and we have a lovely environment with lakes and park and many bike trails which I cannot ride on
there is a big interest in sustainability etc and its not a concrete jungle like what I have seen in some places in Texas and Florida where you cannot walk anywhere.
A lot of folks where I live are concerned that the govmt has slowly been eroding the middle class to paint us into a corner where they have more control and people are just busy trying to survive, no time to educate themselves on whats really going on or how to address it, frustrated the population becomes vulnerable and falls prey to platitudes they hear on mindless "news" channels and buy into blaming other poor people in same plight or worse for their problems instead of seeing the bigger picture and thus vote into power the very same people that are robbing them blind. I am not sure if "acting locally thinking globally" is enough.

Also another topic you touched on, the patronizing aspect of certain leftwingers, I am thinking of people I know in mental health field who think they are for the people and support democracy etc yet are actually eiitists, one friend in mind from an affluent family and now a counselor is, in my opinion, unconsciously acting like the missionaries did in Africa many years ago,thinking he has a handle on the "truth" and needs to "enlighten" the poor people who come in trouble w/one element of our systems (legal, social etc whatever referral for) and use manipulative psychology techniques to lead them in the direction he deems most appropriate for them, because left to their own devices they will choose incorrectly. Granted, a lot of people left to their own devices do seem to be making a lot of stupid decisions these days haha so I am not sure what the answer is on that one and I am way too overtired to figure it out tonight...
peace
out
xrs

I have searched for links to SW and the RCP, but all we have, is what we've posted so far. I hope Suzy has better luck if shes still looking, and yes Suzy, I've been cursing myself all day for not remembering.

Click to expand...

Hi bullybeef,

I'm not intending spending any time looking - I only looked at the first couple of pages of Google to satisfy myself that a reliable source isn't there.

Bullybeef wrote:

I've been racking my brains, trying to remember where I first saw it last year, and you know, it could have been somewhere as tenuous as Wikipedia. Unfortunately, if it was there then, it isn't now, and I cannot recall if there was citation either. I remember now thinking at the time, if SW was a former member, it must be common knowledge, which is why I haven't really mentioned it in case I was constantly stating the obvious.

Click to expand...

I've been involved in UK ME politics since mid 2002, if there were a reliable reference I think others would have come across it by now and it's not "common knowledge".

As for Wikipedia:

Because the Simon Wessely Article page is often "Protected" or "Semi Protected", editors and potential editors of the Article page discuss potential changes to the text on the Wessely Talk (Discussion) page first.

Changes to the Article page are logged in the Article page "History" and previous versions can be pulled up and viewed and the text compared with more recent or previous versions of the text.

There are History pages for Talk (Discussion) pages, too.

Editors making suggestions for changes or additions to the Article text are required to provide a Wikipedia "RS" - that is a "Reliable Source".

A reliable source on Wikipedia is usually required to be a public domain source - either a journal paper, a media article, an official organisation website, an official report or documents on a website which is considered a reliable source by the Wiki Admins.

What isn't usually permissable as a "Reliable Source" are non public domain sources, documents held by individuals, original research carried out by editors for which only they hold the documentary evidence etc.

So had this claim ever been incorporated into the Wessely article, per se (or any other Wiki article), even temporarily, a record will exist in the wiki History pages for the article or the Talk page.

So rather than consider Wikipedia to be a "tenuous" source, the development of Wikipedia pages are archived through their History pages.

If this claim had been made on the Discussion pages, the editor would likely have been asked to provide a public domain source to substantiate this claim. If the editor were unable to do so, the claim would be dismissed as unsubstantiated and unusable in the article.

So had this claim been made on Wikipedia, either it will have a reference and if it does, it will perforce be a public domain reference or it will be unreferenced on a Talk/Discussion page.

If unreferenced, on a Discussion page, then as a reliable source for our purposes, here, it is useless.

Bullybeef wrote:

All we know is SW has been in the company of ex-RCP members, so maybe someone will trip over a connection. My guess is, if he was an ex member, any evidence will be in will be in internet heaven by now.

Click to expand...

There is always the WayBack Machine (though this does not archive all internet material).

And don't forget, in the UK we have several very thorough archivists who copy pages and archive information on key individuals and if there had been sound documentary evidence at one point in the public domain, then someone in the UK internet milieu is likely to retain a copy on file.

I know that some folk get a little tired of me asking for reference sources for statements they make but without a reference, claiming that "...in fact, Wessely was a member of [insert party of choice]" but not being able to provide a reliable reference or documentary evidence is about as useful to me as being told that someone heard it from the guy whose mother-in-law works in the coffee bar at King's College, or that someone had posted it on Facebook.

Of course Simon Wessely's links are important and require further research and verification but please let's be more circumspect about the claims we make.

And Mark, talking of far left and entryism, did you know that former MP for Norwich North, Dr Ian Gibson, joined the Labour Party in 1983 after seven years in the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

But this well documented elsewhere and so although on this occasion, there does not appear to be a reference provided at the foot of the Ian Gibson Wiki Article page, there are many other references online to Ian Gibson's earlier political affiliations.

Also of significance is the fact that in its NOTES FOR EDITORS, Spiked states that Professor Simon Wessely is available for comment or interview and can be contacted through Sandy Starr at Spiked (0207-269-9234).

Click to expand...

Is it worth giving them a ring to see if they do have contact with SW?

I admit to being one of those many who isn't naturally accustomed to sourcing and referencing everything I say, Suzy. It's just not a big part of my background, like a lot of people I'm sure, and I can't imagine how I'd function if I researched and referenced every 'fact' before speaking - I tend to think more in patterns and generalities and assume that anybody listening or reading won't believe me on matters of detail anyway without independently verifying matters themselves.

Click to expand...

Well Mark, I don't provide footnotes for every statement I make on forums (though I do provide key references on my articles).

But if I am asked to provide a reference for a statement made, unreferenced, on a forum or an article, I like to know that I can lay my hands on supportive evidence.

The difference between bullybeef and me and between you and me is that my posts and articles are published under my own name whereas "bullybeef" is anonymous and so for all pratical purposes are you.

You've said:

I can't imagine how I'd function if I researched and referenced every 'fact' before speaking - I tend to think more in patterns and generalities and assume that anybody listening or reading won't believe me on matters of detail anyway without independently verifying matters themselves.

Click to expand...

You actually stated:

"...in fact, Wessely was a member of...."

but when challenged, cannot produce a single source to support this "fact".

Sorry if I sent you on a wild goose chase, Suzy. Don't worry, I am annoyed at myself with my bl**dy ME memory.

Click to expand...

Well bullybeef, I don't begrudge the time spent opening up a couple of pages of Google links.

What I am concerned about is that the only source so far is that unreferenced claim on digitalspy on which possibly you may have both relied, which in terms of a reliable source is really no better than the woman who works in the King's College coffee bar.

bullybeef has written:

Is it worth giving them a ring to see if they do have contact with SW?

Click to expand...

I assume this is a reference to:

Also of significance is the fact that in its NOTES FOR EDITORS, Spiked states that Professor Simon Wessely is available for comment or interview and can be contacted through Sandy Starr at Spiked (0207-269-9234).

Born in Manchester, England, in 1947, I went to London in 1965 to attend Hornsey College of Art. Having been a top student there, I was expelled after the student occupation of 1968. Over the following thirty years, I was a libertarian/Marxist political activist and campaigner, involved in a wide range of anti imperialist and community campaigns...

Thing is Mark, I'm already aware of the advisors to the Science Media Centre, the Spiked/Fitzpatrick/Furedi links, of the Monbiot LobbyWatch site, of front groups etc (but I'm pleased that you've posted all that material for those who aren't).

But I hope that folk will be more circumspect about the claims they make.

This site is monitored by other sites and forums like Bad Science. You may not give a toss how other forums portray the reliability of the ME internet community or whether inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims are jumped on and picked to pieces elsewhere.

But these forums are also monitored by journalists and extracts from posts are being quoted in the media and I think we all need to take care.

Thinking "more in patterns and generalities" isn't a valid argument against presenting hearsay or half remembered claims off the internet as a "fact".

"Wessely studied at Trinity Hall, Cambridge (BA 1978), University College, Oxford (BM BCh 1981), and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (MSc 1989). In 1993 the University of London conferred upon him the degree of Doctor of Medicine.[2]"

Goldacre was educated at Magdalen College School, Oxford[citation needed] then studied medicine at Magdalen College, Oxford where he obtained a first class degree in his preclinical studies in 1995.[1] While at Oxford he also edited the student magazine Isis.[6] Before going on to clinical medicine at University College London, he was a visiting researcher in cognitive neuroscience at the University of Milan, working on fMRI brain scans of language and executive function. He received a master's degree in philosophy (funded by the British Academy) from King's College London.[1][7] He passed the MRCPsych Part II examinations in December 2005 and became a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.[8] In 2008 he was a research fellow at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London.[9] As of November 2009[update], Goldacre is a psychiatric registrar and Guardian research fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford.[10]

You may not give a toss how other forums portray the reliability of the ME internet community or whether inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims are jumped on and picked to pieces elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Hey Suzy - I agree with a lot of what you've been saying, but stuff like this isn't fair on Mark.

I understand your concerns about the way rumors can spread within the CFS community, and think misquotes and unfounded claims can really damage us - but this forum is also a place to chat and for people to work out what they think when they stumble upon new information. As long as we're presenting this stuff as all being rather vague and uncertain - unfit for repetition without the full context, then it can be a helpful way of letting us explore what we all think about these things.

Most of us haven't been involved in this for as long as you, and are still finding our feet. Being able to talk things over is useful, even if it does mean we occasionally sound like nit-wits.

ie. Weiss' scepticism can be explained by reference to his scientific work; it isn't necessary, or helpful, to go looking for links to the "Wessely School" or the Revolutionary Communist Party.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, Lo et al cite the Voisset paper and then go on to explain how they ensured that they were not working with a 'rumour virus'. Here's the opening para to the Lo et al section on this.

Voisset and coauthors (20) recently reviewed the pitfalls encountered in the identification of new retroviruses (“rumor viruses”). False-positive results can occur for a variety of reasons. Viral gene sequence specific PCR primers can non specifically amplify nucleic acid sequences that differ from the target sequence. For this reason, we sequenced every positive PCR product (every amplicon of the
predicted size) and confirmed MLV-related gene sequences in every instance.

Hey Suzy - I agree with a lot of what you've been saying, but stuff like this isn't fair on Mark.

I understand your concerns about the way rumors can spread within the CFS community, and think misquotes and unfounded claims can really damage us - but this forum is also a place to chat and for people to work out what they think when they stumble upon new information. As long as we're presenting this stuff as all being rather vague and uncertain - unfit for repetition without the full context, then it can be a helpful way of letting us explore what we all think about these things.

Most of us haven't been involved in this for as long as you, and are still finding our feet. Being able to talk things over is useful, even if it does mean we occasionally sound like nit-wits.

Click to expand...

Why is it unfair on Mark? He did not present the statement as "vague and uncertain".

He presented it as

...in fact, Wessely was a member of....

He could not back that up and neither can bullybeef and neither did the poster on digitalspy, so now Mark has had to go back and edit to "alleged".

But he can't even provide me with an "alleged" other than that unreferenced post by an anonymous poster on digitalspy forum. Great.

These are public forums, Esther, and I don't agree that lack of experience is a valid argument.

Either you can back up a "fact" or you cannot. If you cannot then don't present it as a fact.

Bullybeef, if you are confident that you read it somewhere so it must be right - why not approach the man himself

Dear Prof,

Are you or have you ever been a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party? [Not to be confused with Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) or Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist].

These are public forums, Esther, and I don't agree that lack of experience is a valid argument.

Either you can back up a "fact" or you cannot. If you cannot then don't present it as a fact.

Click to expand...

But people can just make honest mistakes - believing that they can back something up as a fact, when really they cannot. I don't think it's fair to see this as any sort of indication of not giving a toss about how others view CFS patients.

I'm sure that you've made mistakes in the past too, even if you do try especially hard to be careful.

As the discussion progressed we started to work out what evidence there is, what could be concluded from it, what else could be hinted at if not proven - sometimes making public mistakes can be useful, so long as we try to correct them and don't just jump upon any rumour that fits our prejudices as if it were God's truth. It was good to have you pushing back and asking for evidence, but that should be how discussion forums work - with this sort of communication helping us clarify our ideas and knowledge.

But people can just make honest mistakes - believing that they can back something up as a fact, when really they cannot. I don't think it's fair to see this as any sort of indication of not giving a toss about how others view CFS patients.

I'm sure that you've made mistakes in the past too, even if you do try especially hard to be careful.

Click to expand...

If mistakes are brought to my attention then I will correct them and as soon as possible. The ability to correct mistakes was one of the reasons I lobbied hard for an entire weekend against the introduction by the admins of a policy of no edits after a certain time period.

But then I don't go out on the internet claiming "in fact, blah blah blah..." unless I know I can provide a source for that "in fact" irrespective of to whom that "in fact" refers to.

What I find problematic is that Mark attempted to shuffle his inability to provide a reference to one side with his assertion that his thinking was "more in patterns and generalities" and not in details.

Whether he is working under his own name or a pseudonym, he still accountable for the claims he makes.

Either Wessely is or has been a member of whatever flavour of Communist Party that bullybeef and Mark had claimed he was or he is/was not - but oh...that's just a detail...

I thought that when Mark mentioned "more in patterns and generalities" he was talking more generally about his posts, and that he has already acknowledged it was a mistake to say that it was a fact that Wessely was a member of LM.

Maybe this disagreement stems partly from different views as to how the forum should be used. Would you prefer Mark to go back and edit his post? For me, I'd prefer that the mistake was left, as it is corrected later in the thread and editing the original post would confuse the flow of the discussion.

edit: actually - it looks like he did go back and edited 'alleged' into one sentence. See - I told you that these edits confuse me!

based only on whats been posted in this thread it appears the LM agenda is the advancement of science and technology regardless of the human or environmental cost

who here thinks SW has any interest in science at all?

whenever something "scientific" is raised he sidesteps, ignores or occasionally tells a barefaced lie (and no I cant provided a source)

Click to expand...

Some of the thing's about 'Victim culture'. His belief that people undermine their own freedom by being too risk averse. A few other things I don't want to mention in case Suzy asks me for references (sorry Suzy... I'm pathetically lazy!). Nothing very extraordinary. In some ways Wessely seems like someone who has ended up at right-wing positions by going a left-wing route... but lots of people have who have noting to do with LM (edit: does he really seem 'right-wing'? Maybe I just meant 'unpleasant'?).

I think Wessely is interested in the philosophy of science - I think he's said so himself. That's not to say he's interested in the sort of science we want!

I don't think it's sensible for us to tie Wessely to LM at the moment because the only clear link we have is one quote from their website saying that he is available for comments. But I do think it's worth looking into the philosophy behind this movement and seeing how well it does correspond with his approach to CFS.